Switch to: References

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. Issues in Conductive Argument Weight.Thomas Fischer & Rongdong Jin - unknown
    The concept of conductive argument weight was developed by Carl Wellman and later by Trudy Govier. This concept has received renewed attention recently from another informal logician, Robert C. Pinto. Argument weight has also been addressed in recent years by theorists in AI & Law. I argue from a non-technical perspective that some aspects of AI & Law’s approach to argument weight can be usefully applied to the issues addressed by Pinto. I also relate some of these issues to the (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Recognizing Argument Types and Adding Missing Reasons.Christoph Lumer - 2019 - In Bart J. Garssen, David Godden, Gordon Mitchell & Jean Wagemans (eds.), Proceedings of the Ninth Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (ISSA). [Amsterdam, July 3-6, 2018.]. Amsterdam (Netherlands): pp. 769-777.
    The article develops and justifies, on the basis of the epistemological argumentation theory, two central pieces of the theory of evaluative argumentation interpretation: 1. criteria for recognizing argument types and 2. rules for adding reasons to create ideal arguments. Ad 1: The criteria for identifying argument types are a selection of essential elements from the definitions of the respective argument types. Ad 2: After presenting the general principles for adding reasons (benevolence, authenticity, immanence, optimization), heuristics are proposed for finding missing (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Try to See It My Way: Modelling Persuasion in Legal Discourse. [REVIEW]Trevor J. M. Bench-Capon - 2003 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 11 (4):271-287.
    In this paper I argue that to explain and resolve some kinds of disagreement we need to go beyond what logic alone can provide. In particular, following Perelman, I argue that we need to consider how arguments are ascribed different strengths by different audiences, according to how accepting these arguments promotes values favoured by the audience to which they are addressed. I show how we can extend the standard framework for modelling argumentation systems to allow different audiences to be represented. (...)
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  • Norms and Value Based Reasoning: Justifying Compliance and Violation.Trevor Bench-Capon & Sanjay Modgil - 2017 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 25 (1):29-64.
  • The Notion of Pseudo-Argument in Perelman’s Thought.Emmanuelle Danblon - 2009 - Argumentation 23 (3):351-359.
    According to Perelman (Rhétoriques, Presses Universitaires de Bruxelles, 1989: 80), a pseudo-argument is an argument that is supposed to be convincing from a given audience viewpoint, while it is not from another audience viewpoint. Such a claim raises the traditional problem of the boundaries between the well known “convince versus persuade” dichotomy. This paper aims at investigating it from a contemporary rhetorical and argumentative perspective which will take into account the fictional dimension of persuasion. In this perspective, it will be (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Agreeing to Differ: Modelling Persuasive Dialogue Between Parties With Different Values.Chris Reed - 2002 - Informal Logic 22 (3).
    In some cases of disagreement, particularly in ethics and law, it is impossible to provide any conclusive demonstration. The role of argument in such cases is to persuade rather than to prove. Drawing on ideas ofPerelrnan, we argue that persuasion in such cases relies on a recognition that the strength of such arguments will vary according to their audience, and depends on the comparative weight that the audiences gives to the social values that it advances. To model this, we introduce (...)
    Direct download (11 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Legal Audiences.Fábio Perin Shecaira & Noel Struchiner - 2018 - Argumentation 32 (2):273-291.
    This paper approaches legal argumentation from a rhetorical perspective. It discusses the nature of the audiences that are targeted by judges in the legal process. Judicial opinions reach diverse groups of people with very different attitudes and expectations: other judges, lawyers, litigants, concerned citizens, etc. One important way in which these groups differ is that some of them are more likely to be persuaded by legalistic, precedent or statute-based arguments, while others expect judges to decide on grounds of justice or (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • HYPO's Legacy: Introduction to the Virtual Special Issue.T. J. M. Bench-Capon - 2017 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 25 (2):205-250.
    This paper is an introduction to a virtual special issue of AI and Law exploring the legacy of the influential HYPO system of Rissland and Ashley. The papers included are: Arguments and cases: An inevitable intertwining, BankXX: Supporting legal arguments through heuristic retrieval, Modelling reasoning with precedents in a formal dialogue Game, A note on dimensions and factors, An empirical investigation of reasoning with legal cases through theory construction and application, Automatically classifying case texts and predicting outcomes, A factor-based definition (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations